Is it time to partition Iraq?

I know that some sort of partition of Iraq has been brought up in the numerous Iraq threads, but in my quick search, I found no sustained discussion on partition. Partition has been a taboo subject since before the invasion. It was originally dismissed as an action that would piss Turkey off, send the Shias into the Iran camp and the Sunis into the arms of Syria, thus creating more instability. I’ve seen numerous articles in the press in the past year suggesting that some sort of partitioning of Iraq would be the only way to slow the interethnic bloodletting that we are seeing in the daily news. Here are a couple of articles that popped up in a Google search:

http://www.slate.com/id/2099574/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,1059-2189971,00.html
I’m not saying that I agree or disagree with either of these articles. I do, however, think that the merits and problems of partition are worthy of discussion.

As I see it, these are the whys and why nots for some sort of ethnic partitioning and resettling of Iraq under a federal government:

Why: We partitioned in Bosnia and it ultimately worked. Partitioning and resettling of people into “safe areas” is ethnic cleansing, but violent ethnic cleansing is already happening.

Why not: Some Sunis and Shias may refuse to give up certain patches of territory to each other. To make sure that all get a share of oil derived revenue, a strong federal government would be required, but partitioning may make such a government an even more remote possibility than it seems right now since the Shias will likely see partitioning the same way Kosovo does: partitioning today, nationhood tomorrow.

I am not optimistic about Bush’s “surge.” My question for people here is whether partitioning is a viable option and if it should be done if Bush’s surge doesn’t slow the bloodletting in Iraq.

Oh oh oh, great idea we could just hand it over to Israel, no? :laughing:

How about an auction?

Seems like a lesson could also be learned from the last time the Middle East was partitioned by outside powers and how well that worked.

A good thought to keep in mind, superemma. No doubt the authors of the articles linked above would agree with you.

Presumably they, too, are asking themselves “To what extent is it necessary to cling to these arbitrary borders (i.e. the modern borders of Iraq) that were imposed by the European colonial powers? Perhaps this artificial construct drawn on a map in Paris in 1919, composed of three distinct groups who hate each other, was not so brilliant as to be off-limits to questioning? :ponder:

Ok, I bid a quid (thats about $2) and I’ll donate all the agricultural stuff to Africa.

Ok maybe I am talking shit but:

India and Pakistan were partitioned and how many people died (and were murdered) when people found themselves on the wrong side of the border. And today there is still Kashmir. I am not saying India and Pakistan should not have been partitioned, but it was messy and ended up in two wars

The island of Ireland was partitioned and what emerged. The Unionists ceased control and gerrymandered the electorates, out of fear of the nationalists in NI and the state of Ireland to the south. The Free State/Irish Republic did its best to undermine and destabilize the government of Northern Ireland. Then you had sectarian paramilitaries on both sides all wanting to do their bit.
What emerged was a bloodbath of sectarianism and tit-for –tat, and an atmosphere of indelible distrust.

Force these groups together; else they will be fighting later over something that was supposed to be agreed amicably by both parties later, or some strategic part of the desert or some place that holds natural resources. How do you prevent a fight later, maybe have a referee or arbiter, where can you find an impartial referee in this region?

One country seems a lot easier to deal with than 3 countries in a region that is already too complicated

Chopping up a country into 3 to reduce the ethnic cleansing short term, but how much of the ethnic cleansing is driven by the Iraqi SHITE and SUNNI hatred, and how much is driven by its neighbors, who do not necessarily want Iraq to collapse, but who intentially stir the pot there for their own agenda or to create more trouble for the USA

So whats your bid then? :laughing:

Good points TNT. The difference, and it may in reality be a meaningless one, between the cases you cite and Iraq’s is that their was no outside party involved in Ireland and India to insure that people could move to safe areas. Of course, the US would hardly be seen as a neutral arbiter in Iraq, especially by the Sunnis. I wonder if the Shias and the Sunnis a.) have seen enough killing; and b.) have enough faith in the occupiers to be willing to pack their belongings and get in the back of a US Army truck to move to a predominantly Shia or Sunni area.

For more partition ideas, click here.

After a period of peace or even relative stability occurs in Iraq, I can envision that the Iraqi government might well decide on a form of “partitioning.”
Perhaps ‘Autonomous regions’ or something along those lines. What the criteria used to define the geographic areas might be, well that is another kettle of fish. If its politically derived, then I can predict continued trouble.
If ethnic, linguistic or “religious grouping” is used - then perhaps the chances for some type of relative success may be increased.
Also the influences exerted by other nation states in the region, Iran/Syria/Pakistan, cannot be overlooked. These actors could well try to subvert this into establishing areas their of influence inside Iraq.

But, in any case, I think a period of political stability is going to be necessary before something such as this can be implemented by the Iraqi govt/people.

Pakistan has influence over Iraq? That’s news to me. Please enlighten us.

This is an interesting idea, but I doubt it is realistic. The Sunni Arabs would get the short end of the stick. They’d get the Akkas and Marjan oilfields, but the lion’s share of the oil would remain with the Shias in the southern valley and the Kurdish Sunnis to the north. How long would it before the Shias blow the Iraqi Pipeline through Saudi Arabia (IPSA) to hell and divert the Tubah and Rumaylah South crude to Az Zubayr via already built pipes? The Kurds could pipe their stock to Turkey via Sufayah and Mushorah, and the Sunni Arab’s pipeline to Syria would then be worthless. Those jokers in Camp Bush who think IPSA is the way to peace because the Shias need it to move the crude from Rumaylah South are kidding themselves (note that Rumaylah North is already piped directly to Az Zubayr). The Sunni Arabs would be left with a handful of minor oilfields and unreliable trains on oft-broken broken tracks to ship the crude. In the meanwhile the Kurds and Shias would also control over 90% of the country’s potable water and arable land. The Sunni Arabs would have to rely on the generosity of the Kurds and Shias to share oil profits and sell them water and food at reasonable prices. Something tells me they’ll take a pass.